Archive for January, 2013

Piers Morgan: Get the @$%& Out

24 January 2013

OK. I can’t stand it anymore. I’m back. Some of you knew it would come to this, and that I couldn’t keep my big mouth shut long.

I have a question.

Where does Piers Morgan – or, better: Piers Stefan O’Meara – get off? Really. The dolt hasn’t seen fit to become a citizen, yet believes he’s entitled to a voice in the US? This parasite suckles from the teet of our economy, and spews leftist garbage better than Øbama himself. What right does this bastard have trying to set policy or opinion in the US? Like Bono of U2:  absolutely none. I really don’t understand his employment by CNN, either – it’s not like there is any shortage of left-spewing socialistic personages here in the States. (Well, OK. Maybe there is a shortage of left-spewing socialistic personages who’d actually rather “work” for a living than live on the dole or the government payroll. But I repeat myself…)

I just finished viewing one of Morgan’s gun control rants in which he so daintily dismisses the gun problem in Mexico – a country with absolute gun control laws – as “a special case”. No, dipshit. It is clearly not a special case. Mexico, like every other patch of dry land in the world, as well as several oceans,  has these things called “criminals”. Criminals are, notably, people who are known for not  following the law – and most of these are not very particular about which laws they break. That the criminals in Mexico, by and large, also ignore drug trafficking laws is not a special case, but further demonstration of the point. Too, consider this: would Mexico’s drug cartels be so hugely powerful if the law-abiding Mexicans had the means to push them back? Alas, though related to the discussion here, that is another subject.

Let us talk a wee bit about “gun violence” in your beloved Britain, shall we? Can we agree that  like Mexico, Britain also has absolute gun control laws? Can we also agree that, unlike Mexico, in your glowing example – Britain –  there is no “special cause” such as a massive drug trafficking-based economy?  Without this “special cause”, there were still 7,006 firearm related offenses in just England and Wales, according to The Home Office, during 2010/11. So clearly, Piers, guns control laws work, right? Clearly not. You see only 7,006 reported offenses, and crow. I see 7,006 bits of discovered, exposed proof that your premise is fundamentally flawed. I see 7,006 demonstrations that criminals, by definition,  don’t give a rats bahookie about gun control laws. And, as a statistician,  I see far, far more than 7,006 since there are always large numbers of crimes that  go unreported, and an even larger number that go undetected. 

And the problem with “gun violence”, as you like to call it, isn’t the law-abiding gun owners. These are the people stripped of their right to meet force with equal force by misguided “gun free” laws – even that bastard at Fort Hood was safe in the knowledge that solders are not allowed to carry on base. I posit that the vast majority of the incidents bemoaned by the gun control zealots – particularly those in which the shooter survived and was arrested – likely wouldn’t have happened at all if those perpetrating them had an inkling that they’d be met with equal force. Think about it, genius: the huge majority of these incidents occurred in places were law-abiding folks are not allowed to be armed. It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to see the connection.

Piers, if you’re so enamored with your British home and their gun control, why don’t you just return there?! Doing so, you have no worries regarding the second amendment –  what it was intended for, and your perceived problems with it – and, in my opinion, you’ll make the US a better place.